Comments on: Bigfoot and YouTube: Worthless Combo?

By: doctoratlantis

doctoratlantis — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:26:01 +0000

I’ve been trying to use YouTube to promote skepticism – but it is a great place to see what people are passing off as “real”. If you think a lot of the cryptid videos are lame, take a look at the ghosts. Pathetic.

By: rodrigo

rodrigo — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:38:55 +0000

the video of the bear is suspect. look at its arm motion and feet balance. i have never seen a bear walk like that. fake?

By: DWA

DWA — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:08:26 +0000

dogu4:

“I think the sasquatch community could very well be shooting itself in the collective foot. It’s a condiditon endemic to all organizations and something to be aware of and to guard against…and so filtering through haystack for the possible needle seems to be the only way. That is in keeping with the modern scientific method to filter through huge amounts of data. If it were easy, it’d already be done.”

Can’t say it much better than that myself. Particularly the first sentence.

The kneejerk-debunk crowd is doing nothing for the field. They’re usually right. But when you do the same thing, no matter what, all the time, of course you’ll sometimes be right, just as a busted clock is right twice a day.

(Once, if it’s digital and shows am/pm. Sheesh.)

By: dogu4

dogu4 — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:02:33 +0000

DWA: Well put. Considering the singular lack or results the enthusiasts and self-identified experts have had in producing much of anything, it stands to reason that any evidnce will just as likely come across as the result of luck to someone who doesn’t actually any good idea of what they’ve encountered and “luckily” captured on their cellphone video.
For most people these days, if they were to find themselves with an enigmatic piece of video taking up space on their cellphone’s memory or their camera’s memory stick along with the vacation pics, on asking themselves what to do, would more than likely, naturally and overwhelmingly answer “youtube”. And why not? If they tried to post it on a specialized website, they’re just as likely to recieve a wall of negative criticism if it didn’t look exactly like some enthousiast thinks it should look like…and then if it looked too good it would be pointed out that it “looked too good”…either way the result would be that the owner of the video would think it’s not worth the grief. I think the sasquatch community could very well be shooting itself in the collective foot. It’s a condiditon endemic to all organizations and something to be aware of and to guard against…and so filtering through haystack for the possible needle seems to be the only way. That is in keeping with the modern scientific method to filter through huge amounts of data. If it were easy, it’d already be done.

By: DWA

DWA — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:25:22 +0000

springheeledjack: not so fast man! Remember the Peguis video? I want to know what that is!

I guess here it is: YouTube is here, whether we like it or not. People have all kinds of reasons for putting stuff there. We will – we WILL – have to wade through tons of crap. But I’m not willing – totally – to rule it out for leads.

Because, well, it’s there, and people post to it. For all kinds of reasons.

By: springheeledjack

springheeledjack — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 22:38:16 +0000

Yeah, definitely worthless…I have yet to see any BF footage or other Cryptid footage that was worth anything coming from YouTube…YouTube is for people with nothing better to do than make crap videos of all kinds of…well, crap!

By: AKbiggie

AKbiggie — Fri, 30 May 2008 21:32:38 +0000

I suggest that if you talked to the person who made the first movie, nightvision, he would tell you that yes the movie was shot out in the woods at night, yes the bears are scary at night, yes the imagination runs wild, and yes the bigfoot phenomena has become like a religion, complete with prophets, false prohpets, idols, and mysterious sightings. .

By: DWA

DWA — Fri, 30 May 2008 15:40:22 +0000

“Bigfoot and YouTube: Worthless Combo?”

I think Patty has more than proven this: as far as proof goes, absolutely. We will need a specimen, as that is recognized by science, for proof.

As far as inspiring people – one or more of whom we hope will be a scientist with time and $$$$$ – to look: bring it on. (What in the HECK happened to the Peguis, Manitoba video…?)

And as far as the Snowshoe video is concerned: what I opened looked to be from Alaska.

As far as the “bear” in the second video is concerned: maybe I’m looking at the wrong one there too. That IS NOT A BEAR. No one who has “seen black bears in the same area several times before” would think that is a bear. Not only are the legs too long; there is no way a bear walks bipedally. People: under any conceivable natural situation, THEY DO NOT. (Dancing bears have crippled scientific advancement. Sigh…)

Of course, there is more than one clever way to disguise a hoax.
(“No, we do not think that [man in suit] is a sasquatch…”)

As to the third one: YouTube has its inspirational limits, for sure.

By: shumway10973

shumway10973 — Fri, 30 May 2008 14:27:01 +0000

Youtube is like programming a computer. you get out what gets put in. That production (the first one) that was so fake.
No one would be out in a true forest at night like that. Green filter to make reflection of the eyes look scarier. Then the Blair Witch run away scene. Please, get original.

By: eireman

eireman — Fri, 30 May 2008 13:29:14 +0000

YouTube is neither a scientific forum nor a bastion of solid journalism. Nothing presented therein should be construed as either. It’s entertainment – INFOtainment at best.